Those of mechanics, each one singing his as it should be blithe and strong,

The carpenter singing his as he measures his plank or beam,

The mason singing his as he makes ready for work, or leaves off work,

The boatman singing what belongs to him in his boat, the deckhandsinging on the steamboat deck,

The shoemaker singing as he sits on his bench, the hatter singing as he stands,

The wood-cutter’s song, the ploughboy’s on his way in the morning, orat noon intermission or at sundown,

The delicious singing of the mother, or of the young wife at work, or ofthe girl sewing or washing,

Each singing what belongs to him or her and to none else,

The day what belongs to the day—at night the party of young fellows,

robust, friendly,

Singing with open mouths their strong melodious songs.

===

Walt Whitman

—————————

“The heroic cannot be the common, nor the common the heroic.”

=

Ralph Waldo Emerson

—————–

Memorial Day is a day to be happy for what we have and sad for the cost to maintain the idea of which we in the United States have. But, mostly, today we memorialize the efforts of the people of the United State of America who have put their lives on the line for the protection of ‘freedom of’ globally.

Freedom. Freedom of choice, freedom to think different thoughts and freedom to speak your thoughts. These are freedoms which we believe people, anywhere, should have. It is their inalienable right. This belief makes us happy, yet, also represents a burden of responsibility. Just look at the map of the United States state mottos.

It is a reminder that state by state we embrace the freedom which is the lifeblood of the soul of what is United States of America.

While I assume, or presume, USA has accepted this responsibility based on a higher purpose linked to everyone deserves ‘freedom of’ I also tend to believe somewhere in our souls of purpose we also assume this responsibility because we recognize that people who live in cultures with freedom tend to be happier people <graph & research included in link>.

I remind everyone of this today because while sometimes we Americans invest a lot of energy trying to convince ourselves that we are the most dysfunctional and divisive country in the world we may want to invest some of that same energy reminding ourselves that because we stand so unequivocally for ‘freedom of’ that can make us appear dysfunctional & divisive, i.e., it’s sometimes simply the natural repercussions of a culture embracing, and constantly struggling with, ‘freedom of.’

Supporting that belief and right is not only a responsibility our military upholds globally … we enjoy it domestically.

Freedom forces involvement <either mentally or physically>. And I believe when people are involved in choices, or even just voicing opinions, they feel more involved in the bigger picture of what is happening … and are proportionately happier. Happier and, yet, still dissatisfied. Freedom is a very satisfying thing <we enjoy it> … and dissatisfying thing <we struggle with the boundaries>.

Regardless. It stretches us as people.

Now. We tend to confuse being perpetually dissatisfied <as a country> versus simply being unhappy.

Yeah. We are dissatisfied. We are dissatisfied because once we have attained something we strive for the next level of ‘something better.’ People are happiest when evolving, but, in general we are a happier nation because we have the ‘freedom of.’

Just take a moment today and remember that <and maybe smile for once when looking at the flag>.

And I imagine the ones who Lincoln suggested ‘gave the last full measure of devotion.’

—————

“The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.

It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

Abraham Lincoln

November 19, 1863

I do not use the ‘Hero’ word lightly … but they are the heroes we should be recognizing. These are not everyday heroes. In fact … I will remind everyone that I suggested several memorial days ago that we use the word ‘hero’ far too often 364 days of the year and most likely not enough on this day.

It was Ralph Waldo Emerson who suggested the common cannot be heroes. That is not a popular thought these days, but a worthy thought on Memorial Days. We run the risk of being disingenuous if we call those who truly deserve the title ‘hero’ on Memorial Day and, yet, call the common everyday grind people the other 364 days of the year heroes.

Yikes.

I am suggesting that we the people, the common everyday people who fight the grind, the good fight, day in and day out, must reject the belief that we are, or can be, ‘heroic’ in our everyday lives. Yeah. I am suggesting that we everyday common people stop thinking the overall belief that heroism resides in the capacity of the majority.

Emerson said it, and I agree, true heroism is not in the purview of the common person.

True heroism is not for you & I <okay … maybe some of us … but not me>.

Our job .. task as it were … dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

That is our task … not heroism.

Yet, it seems like in today’s world we have a desperate desire for heroes and heroism. Desperate but with good intentions to memorialize the true effort exerted by the common person.

In doing so we have a tendency to celebrate even a glimmer of heroism found in the ordinary person in whatever moment could possibly be construed as some extraordinary moment.

I am suggesting in these moments that by doing so we diminish heroism and the true heroes. To me things like duty, honor, courage & integrity are every day obligations for everyday people.

Not exceptional, but expected.

In other words people should be going about doing what they do with a sense of duty. Simply doing what we expect people should do. I believe ‘Hero’ should be an esteemed status.

Elite.

We should commend and bestow the honor of ‘hero’ only those who ‘serve beyond the call of duty’ without expectation of reward.

Just as there is only one North Star the great heroes should remain the brightest of the bright stars. And when we create heroes from those who simply portray courage or a strong sense of duty <or doing what is right or what we should expect of common everyday people> it seems to lessen rather than increase the image and reality of true heroism.

Great heroes are few in number.

Great heroes are not doing little things that matter.

Great heroes should be celebrated & honored on Memorial Day.

That said.

To the many, but not enough, military folk I have had the pleasure & honor of meeting and known -I salute you.

My ‘freedom of’ exists today because of your choice to serve and support it.

=====

And some sobering thoughts to remind us of the ‘few’ who deserve the hero title:

The number of U.S. casualties in each U.S. war:

—

Civil War:

Approximately 620,000 Americans died. The Union lost almost 365,000 troops and the Confederacy about 260,000. More than half of these deaths were caused by disease.

—

World War I:

116,516 Americans died, more than half from disease.

—

World War II:

405,399 Americans died.

—

Korean War:

36,574 Americans died.

Vietnam Conflict:

58,220 Americans died. More than 47,000 Americans were killed in action and nearly 11,000 died of other causes.

“Heroism is an obedience to a secret impulse of an individual’s character.

Now to no other man can its wisdom appear as it does to him, for every man must be supposed to see a little farther on his own proper path than anyone else.”

–

Ralph Waldo Emerson

<ESSAY VIII Heroism>

===

So.

This is about my thoughts on heroes but let me start by saying I tend to believe little things can make a big difference. And in a never ending struggle with everyday common Life you should seek the small victories because in the end … a big Life is made up of some pretty important small victories.

That said. Some things are bigger than others. And some big things cannot be done by accumulating a bunch of little things … even if they are really good little things.

And some big things should never be diminished. Like heroism & heroes.

Yup. On a day in the United States where we recognize the memories of heroes, the veterans of the military, I want to talk about heroes.

Now. Before I say what I want to say … I know we need heroes. Not just for practical reasons <we need to remember that they actually did something heroic that made a difference> but from a character compass standpoint.

They become a North Star for attitude, actions and character.

Universally we all have a desire to hear the stories and to identify with people with strong character and learn through the circumstances and choices that make them heroic to us.

And. I believe it is a Life truth that there can be no great heroes without great followers which means we, the ordinary people, are the great followers always seeking the great heroes.

And that is what I want to discuss.

Great heroes and, uhm, how I struggle with the ‘local media spotlighted’ heroes. I struggle because I believe that in order to deserve a real hero we the people, the common everyday people who fight the good fight day in and day out, must be able to rise above a sense of self and the belief that we are ‘heroic’ in our everyday lives and stop thinking the overall belief that heroism resides in the capacity of the majority.

For true heroism is not in the purview of the common person. True heroism is not for you & I <okay, maybe some of us, but not me>.

Whoa ! <you say> Let me explain my thinking.

We have a desperate <and not a bad objective with poor intentions> desire for heroes and heroism. And in doing so we have a tendency to celebrate the glimpses of heroism found in the ordinary person in possibly an extraordinary moment. Maybe by doing so we diminish heroism. To me, despite how we want to treat these following things as exceptional or examples for people to follow, things like duty, honor, courage & integrity are every day obligations for everyday people.

Not exceptional, but expected.

People should be going about doing what they do with a sense of duty simply doing what we expect people should do. I believe Hero should be an esteemed status. Commending only those who ‘serve beyond the call of duty’ without expectation of reward’.

Elite.

Just as there is only one North Star, the great heroes remain the brightest of the bright stars. When we create heroes from those who simply portray courage or a strong sense of duty <or doing what is right> it seems to lessen rather than increase the image and reality of true heroism.

Great heroes are few in number.

Great heroes are not doing little things that matter.

I fully understand this is a contrary point of view.

We like everyday heroes. Or maybe we just like the idea of them & the fact an ordinary person can be one.

News always raises up the unheralded local person, the unknown personality, the common person doing something seemingly heroic in everyday Life and shares ‘the story.’

We like it. To be sure, these people certainly deserve to be commended. Commended as heroes? Well. You could argue that to claim most people are heroes, and do heroic things, suggests that there really are not any heroes.

Heroes are not common. Heroic acts cannot be common.

Ok.

Here is the good news <for me> so that before everyone starts shoving random objects up my wazoo … Ralph Waldo Emerson agrees with me <or I guess I agreed with him?>.

Ralph Waldo Emerson

“The characteristic of heroism is its persistency. All men have wandering impulses, fits, and starts of generosity. But when you have chosen your part, abide by it, and do not weakly try to reconcile yourself with the world. The heroic cannot be the common, nor the common the heroic.”

Ralph <or Waldo to his closest drinking buddies> wrote an essay on Heroism. A brilliant piece <albeit he uses a boatload of words I do not understand and strings them together in some very odd sentences> where he solidly puts forth a belief that heroes are special and few.

Let me share some of his thoughts <I have bolded the really special parts>:

———

Our culture, therefore, must not omit the arming of the man. Let him hear in season, that he is born into the state of war, and that the commonwealth and his own well-being require that he should not go dancing in the weeds of peace, but warned, self-collected, and neither defying nor dreading the thunder, let him take both reputation and life in his hand, and, with perfect urbanity, dare the gibbet and the mob by the absolute truth of his speech, and the rectitude of his behaviour.Towards all this external evil, the man within the breast assumes a warlike attitude, and affirms his ability to cope single-handed with the infinite army of enemies. To this military attitude of the soul we give the name of Heroism.

Heroism feels and never reasons, and therefore is always right; and although a different breeding, different religion, and greater intellectual activity would have modified or even reversed the particular action, yet for the hero that thing he does is the highest deed, and is not open to the censure of philosophers or divines. It is the avowal of the unschooled man, that he finds a quality in him that is negligent of expense, of health, of life, of danger, of hatred, of reproach, and knows that his will is higher and more excellent than all actual and all possible antagonists. It is the state of the soul at war, and its ultimate objects are the last defiance of falsehood and wrong, and the power to bear all that can be inflicted by evil agents. It speaks the truth, and it is just, generous, hospitable, temperate, scornful of petty calculations, and scornful of being scorned. It persists; it is of an undaunted boldness, and of a fortitude not to be wearied out. Its jest is the littleness of common life. That false prudence which dotes on health and wealth is the butt and merriment of heroism.

Heroism, like Plotinus, is almost ashamed of its body.

… which common duty can very well attain, to suffer and to dare with solemnity. But these rare souls set opinion, success, and life, at so cheap a rate, that they will not soothe their enemies by petitions, or the show of sorrow, but wear their own habitual greatness.

—-

Heroes are immortal in their heroism.

Heroes have no death.

And they are bigger than us normal everyday folk.

Their purity has never been ‘shrunk to the common size of man.’ We should put heroism on a pedestal just as we should exalt the true heroes.

Emerson reminds us heroism cannot be common … because it is the one thing that is deemed worthy of immortality “… made death impossible, and affirms itself no mortal, but a native of the deeps of absolute and inextinguishable being.”

Ralph was a smart guy and said some really smart things.

We cheapen heroism a little bit by bestowing that honor on too many for too little. And by ‘too little’ I am suggesting we have set the bar too low. We should expect honor, duty, integrity and, yes, courage of convictions and courage to do what is right from everyone.

Those things are the standard for citizenship.

Heroes carry that standard to the forefront and beyond. They are the ones who speak the truth when truth is most difficult to speak, have the fortitude to not be wearied out by littleness of common life and are the rare souls who but wear their own habitual greatness.

Maybe a soldier makes an act of sacrifice for his parents. Maybe he dedicates his life to the perfection of archery. Maybe he spent all of his off duty hours writing the nine million names of Buddha.

Or maybe performed great feats for the cause of truth.

In these cases he would be rewarded with a medallion from a general.”

–

Tibetan warrior monks versus today’s warriors

========

“Our goal is not war.”

—-

James Mattis

===================

So.

With the loss of 4 soldiers in Niger we begin the next round of “beat the crap out of the military until they say what

US Military awards for Valor

we want them to say” <someone fucked up and thank god you pointed it out to us>.

This is crazy.

All I know is my business guy perspective and from my business guy perspective this is crazy.

The politicians, the press and the people need to get off the military’s back.

Does anyone seriously believe the military leaders don’t care they lost 4 people?

Does anyone seriously believe the military leaders are sloppy with regard to the management of their people in all situations let alone ones in which there is likely chance of danger?

Does anyone seriously believe the military leaders don’t care even if it is some knucklehead who made a knucklehead decision?

We run around acting like they don’t care as much as we do, they aren’t as smart as we are <about what they should do> and that … well … anything less than perfection is unacceptable. It is almost like we, nonmilitary people, believe the consequences of war & battle are … well … supposed to be zero <zero $, zero lives, zero mistakes>.

Which leads me to some business thoughts from a business guy for all the politicians, press & people out there yapping at the military:

Business 101: perfection is shit.

I know that the business world has gone batshit crazy over drilling down on each every mistake anyone has ever made on anything, but most sane business leaders realize that shit happens and as long as you know it wasn’t because of carelessness or sloppiness you don’t dwell too on things that didn’t end well.

4 soldiers died and it is quite possible that no one did anything wrong. This is called … uhm … war. The other guys have guns, they are not all students of Wil E Coyote military school and, as any business person can tell you, no plan ever withstands the onslaught of reality.

A truth: you can do everything right and someone can die. Get off their backs.

Business 101: looking at resources without context is shit <stupid>.

My management says “you spent $6k on that!!”

Uhm .

Yeah. $6k to support sales efforts in 50 countries.

That’s context.

That said.

People are screaming “we didn’t know US had 6,000 soldiers in Africa!! … this is empire building!! … military gone wild!!!”

Africa is approximately the same size as 3 USAs <yeah … that big> and there are approximately 3000 counties in the USA so that would be 9,000 counties and … uh oh … 6000 soldiers. Yikes. That’s 2/3rds of a soldier in every county <the math isn’t exact but you get my point>.

People need to get a grip. Get off their backs.

Business 101: how you allocate resources really does impact results.

I will begin with a headline I wrote back in 2009 about Afghanistan: You cut my estimate by 25% and I still have to win? (Uh Oh.)

==========

“Don’t tell me what you value, show me your budget, and I’ll tell you what you value.”

—-

Joe Biden

============

I file how politicians, and a lot of nonmilitary civilians, seem to handle military and resources somewhere in the absurd logic file <which is a really big fat file somewhere in the government filing cabinets>.

The Pentagon estimated they needed a certain amount of soldiers to achieve their objective. Sounds fair <not so fast my friends>. The government says … “well, no can do … we are gonna cut it … don’t worry … just by 25% … now go and win this sucker for America and freedom.”

Well.

In general this is crazy.

I hope the Pentagon pads their estimate a little. What I mean is … I hope they asked for 40,000 soldiers knowing they only needed 30,000 to reach the objective. In my world, if I had to cut 25% off my original estimate I am in one of two places:

I can do the job but I have absolutely no margin of error. None.

Can’t do the job unless you change the objective.

Unfortunately for the Pentagon we know the objective has remained the same. Win.

Oh, by the way, andwin in 18 months <and unsaid. “oh, and by the way, win in 18 months and I really want all of the 30,000 to come back … ok?”>.

<note to everyone: there are days I bet the shooting range underneath the Pentagon is chockfull of more stars than you can imagine shooting out some major (or general) frustration.>

Oh, one more thing, yeah, I almost forgot … as the generals were heading out the door … one of the government goons called out … “hey guys. While you’re driving around that hospitable tourist trap called Afghanistan make sure you don’t shoot, or kill with any weapon we may have, any civilians.”

Sigh.

Here is a truth.

The box the military has been put in would make a private company put in the same situation say:

“Well, that request is unreasonable and I not only won’t do it but … well … I frankly can’t do it”.

It is a fact … I would have walked away from the job if it had been my company. The Pentagon doesn’t have that choice. And, you know, they may actually figure it out.

But that’s right.

This is the US Military. Our military has done some pretty impossible things before. They salute, maybe mumble amongst themselves a little, and do the fucking job <without whining, excuses or bitching to people>.

=============

“The difficult we do immediately. The impossible take a little longer.”

US Army

(actually not originally their quote)

===============

They say nothing and, yet, the politicians, the press, the people run around pointing fingers , demanding explanations and seeking all the imperfections of war <but calling them mistakes>.

This is crazy.

Nuts.

Let them do the impossible jobs we ask of them. Get off their backs.

Look.

Would I figure out a way of cutting the military budget? Yeah. I would try <note: I would actually do a one-time ‘military tax’ and then have the military publicly manage the budget created from that tax – see addendum below>.

But that doesn’t mean I don’t have huge respect for people who serve in the military.

I sometimes believe a lot of that respect is driven by how my military friends discuss courage, valor & values versus the non-military people. As well as maybe, because of my career, I have a better sense of what society values versus what a soldier values <and how that is often misaligned>.

Regardless.

I do not doubt that a soldier finds pride in a chest full of awards & medals.

But I also tend to believe they are more proud of simply the uniform … unadorned. The uniform itself is often the most important award.

But that really isn’t the point today.

While I tend to believe we give too much lip service to how much we appreciate those who choose to serve and too little heartfelt gratitude and respect for those who choose to serve … I wonder how society would view today’s military if they were rewarded with medallions based on virtuistic behavior and not just awards for valor <thereby showing people that choosing to serve is deeper than simply picking up a gun and showing courage>.

Or how about this?

I wonder how society would view today’s leaders, business and government, if they were rewarded with medallions based on virtue and virtuistic behavior.

Yikes.

No bonuses for results <because that is expected> and awards only for things beyond ‘job responsibility performance.’

Imagine if these would be awards that were a measure of their character and not just of their behavior <or talents>.

Sigh. Not gonna happen but what a nice thought.

We need to get off of the military’s back. I will not argue that civilian oversight is a valuable check & balance but we have a slightly absurd way of implementing that check & balance. And we better get a better grip on it because Trump’s misguided belligerent bluster with regard to war, ‘use of military strength’ and “my generals <they would actually be ‘our generals’> is putting the military in a wretched position.

We are demanding they play a President management, restraining, role. That is not their job.

We are demanding them to be military, and generals, and … yet … they are wearing suits. Yeah. That last sentence is one we don’t talk about enough.

Suits versus uniforms.

Here is why military in a civilian job is … well … not as straightforward as you would think.

You wear your job … and how you are addressed.

For example … when John Kelly steps up to a White House podium in a suit he speaks not as a general but as a Chief of Staff. When Jim Mattis speaks out in a suit he speaks not as a general but a civilian representing generals <military>.

I am not suggesting they don’t deserve respect but when I am in a business meeting with retired military I have my conversations as business people, assessing business tasks at hand and whether we, as business people, will do what needs to be done. I cannot afford to look at a medal … its business. Trump calls them “my generals” and … well … they are our civilian public servants.

That’s it.

I am done ranting about this.

I am not ex-military but I know Marines. I know National Guard who went overseas. I know some Navy & Air Force people.

I admit it.

I love these people.

I cannot imagine a better group of people fighting in the name of our country. The people in the Pentagon would amaze you with not only their smarts <the military academies are no University of Vermont – apology to my Catamount friends – but … you get the point>. And their ability using common sense to distill things down is amazing.

So they are smart and have good common sense. Nice mix.

We often ask them to do the impossible. And you know what? I bet they either do it or come close.

Or they will do their damndest to do it.

So let’s all try to keep this in mind and keep things in perspective and … well … get off their backs.

Bottom line. In my mind. Get politics out of the way, suggest media have some perspective and allow the military to do its job. Because our good guys are pretty good at what they signed up to do.

========== BUDGET IDEA ADDENDUM =================

Year after year we haggle over annual military budgets and all we end up doing is funding a great military operation in need of investment spending.

That’s stupid.

What would I do?

Just as I would have done with the Iraq War <but Bush decided to not do> I would go to the American people with a specific number needed and a specific one-time tax to get the money. I would treat the upgrade need as a specific project with specific objectives for which the military will offer specific updates to the American people showing what their money is being spent on and what is happening.

Why do I believe that will work?

The current budget is big enough. I may be interested in tightening the screws a little on current Pentagon budget management but, in general, they have enough money. Tell the people that because it sounds reasonable.

People are fine with paying one-time costs … especially for something as important as the military. In addition it sets the military up for future “ask American people for specific project funding” asks. And you know what? If people cannot be convinced to invest in it maybe, just maybe, the military should go back to the drawing board. But I have to tell you … in my experience … the senior military personnel are better than 99% of business people at outlining needs & wants and rationale.

To a certain extent the military should involve the everyday people more often. We often talk about the wealth inequality gap in America, well, there is an increasing gap between military and everyday people. Military people, and families, and associated services are becoming increasingly cocooned. This does not benefit the military nor does it benefit the everyday citizen. Both groups are made up of some incredibly patriotic people who have the best intentions for America … it would behoove America if they interacted more often.

Lastly, military strategies are changing. And while my idea is about budgeting and asking for money it bleeds into the military sharing with people how conflicts will be conducted. This benefits both the military and the everyday schmuck like me. It sets better expectations and stops people from defining military by movies and past military historical events.

“Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written.

And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes.

I personally resent it bitterly.”

―

Isaac Asimov

===============

“Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”

—

Samuel Johnson

=======================

“When tyranny comes to the United States, she will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a bible.”

——

Gore Vidal

=============

Well.

Trump is exhausting. I think not only to me but to America. Day after day, week after week, he seems to attack … well … e pluribus unim <out of many, one>.

Trump seems to thrive on dividing and the conflict that arises from dividing.

I admit.

On occasion I sit back and think of Alfred in Batman … some people just want to see the world burn.

Anyway.

Donald J Trump went to war against professional black athletes this weekend under the guise of patriotism <albeit his attack is blended with that instinctual subconscious racism which Trump seems to invariably inculcate almost everything he does with>.

They fought back.

That said.

I just had to explain to someone this weekend that I don’t hate Trump – in fact I don’t believe he is worthy of any emotional energy on my part – but that I hate his inability to lead, to unite and to … well … offer a north star with regard to some fairly important discussions that any country should have and must have … and will have.

I hate that his take on America is not e pluribus unim <out of many, one> but rather unim pluribus e <I made that up> … or … out of one, many.

He has done some absurdly horrible leadership things since he has taken office but this weekend, in which he unequivocally used patriotism to suggest that black athletes peacefully protesting what they believe is a social injustice were not only unpatriotic … but should be fired for not showing patriotism, is just … well … horrible. Horribly unpatriotic in fact.

Uhm.

That last thing said. Like it or not … patriotism is not a prerequisite for citizenship. In fact … I would suggest that on any given day a fairly significant swath of the USA population is relatively disappointed in the America. That doesn’t make them any less patriotic, nor does it make them disrespect America, it is like having a quarrel with a loved one … I still love you but at the moment I am not the happiest person in the world with you.

Regardless.

It is absurd to make this a patriot versus non-patriot issue <but that is what Trump is doing>.

Frankly … it is absurd that some people suggest this is a ‘political’ issue … this is a social issue.

And Trump is our head absurdity – he is our scoundrel.

Scoundrels, when challenged, will often use false patriotism in order to shut up their opponents.

Scoundrels will use false patriotism to suggest a black athletes who earns more money for their skills than a hard working white American is a lesser ‘American’.

Scoundrels will use false patriotism, tweeted or yelled, to attempt to affect the economic realities of an industry or specific individual’s income.

Scoundrels will use false patriotism to flirt with some casual racism.

Scoundrels will use false patriotism to … well … actually attack what could be construed ‘patriotic freedoms’ <items actually listed in the Constitution>.

I don’t find it hard to believe Trump is a scoundrel … and, yet, I continue to be shocked by the numerous things that Trump does to violate the norms of not only the Presidential office but the norms of American freedoms as well as the norms of … well … business.

He represents 330 million people and the economic wellbeing of all businesses <which benefit all people> and, yet, he seems to have no problem calling out individuals and individual companies as ‘unpatriotic’ <because they balk at his self defined “america first”>.

It’s hard to think of a group President Trump hasn’t offended or attacked as a candidate or in office:

Women.

Establishment Republicans.

Democrats.

………. Trump attacking … well … everyone ……..

Journalists <“sick people … thieves and crooks”>.

TV hosts.

Pollsters.

NFL players.

NBA players.

Gold Star parents.

POWs <McCain>.

The “Hamilton” cast.

Jews <several times … and, yet, “Israel” is good>.

Catholics <Pope Francis criticisms “disgraceful”>.

Muslims.

Immigrants.

African Americans.

Latinos.

<never white people … even if they carry Nazi flags and say “Jews will not replace us”>.

LGBTQ community.

New Hampshire residents <“a drug-infested den”>.

Mexico.

Belgium.

Germany.

London.

Paris.

<add in another dozen countries>.

NATO.

The UN.

A variety of individual companies.

A union leader <or two>.

Steph Curry.

Snoop Dogg.

Whew.

I think the only ones left are nuns, white/straight/Christian men, Putin and Ivanka.

I could argue that Trump is offering us the most insidious unpatriotic thought of all … “anyone who does not agree with my self defined version of America First is not patriotic — a true American.”

Whew. That’s … well … insidious.

But … you know what? All of this means that Trump is demanding we fight not only for the soul of the nation but also make a decision with regard to “e pluibus unim.”

Fight?

Out of many, one slips off the tongue easily. We like it … maybe even love it. And it becomes easy to say “well, the flag embodies this.”

It is easy because it is tangible and simplistic.

Here is the unfortunate truth we must all face; even our scoundrel of a president, America is an idea. This does not diminish the importance of the flag as emblematic of America as a whole because … well … the flag IS actually emblematic of the whole. By that I mean the military does not have the sole ownership of the flag <and I have the utmost respect for the military with multiple friends in the military> but rather all, the many/pluribus unim, use the flag as representative of ALL the ideas that make up America. Many have died for those ideas … some military and some not.

America is an idea lived out by ALL the people.

America is an idea lived out by people who embrace the soul of the idea of which America is founded upon.

I wrote once a while back that “with our new President I recognize we are now in a struggle for the soul of America – a struggle for our moral core.” And while I still believe that he has brought an entirely different dimension into this struggle … a struggle over patriotism.

One would think this is a relatively easy discussion but Donnie Two Scoops, in his intellectually hollow way, simplistically has decided that patriotism is defined by “not kneeling” or “not burning the flag” … in other words … ”flag above all”.

Look.

I would not kneel during the national anthem but I am not black nor have I faced the social injustice that African Americans face day after day. But I would certainly show support, and respect the choice, of anyone who believed they should.

That is patriotic and that is America. Freedom to show protest and freedom to show support in the way I choose.

Ah.

Maybe the bigger question is would I kneel if I was so disappointed in America so much that I needed to make a stand? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm … I imagine I would.

I don’t know what the issue is but I could envision it.

But this whole NFL/sports/black athlete versus Trump issue is simply one more data point showcasing the ongoing struggle for the soul of our nation AND what ‘e pluribus unim’ really & truly means.

I am personally determined to take up this struggle in any way I can … and anywhere. That, to me, is the patriotic thing to do.

……. my little corner of the world ……….

And I will do whatever I can in my little corner of the world. I will fight back by showcasing individual norms which I believe should help guide societal norms & patriotic norms and ‘e pluribus unim’ norms… better than what I believe our current President offers.

We need to stand up and recognize how easy it is to overlook false patriotism <because patriotism seems to be something we can all agree on>.

Sigh.

Day after day this scoundrel sitting in the Oval office does things that remind us that we are now not only in a struggle for the soul of America and a struggle for our moral core … but he is challenging “e pluribus unim.”

Let us be clear on one thing.

One incredibly important thing.

Our President does not appear to have a soul of integrity & dignity only a core of ‘win at all and any costs’ nor does he appear to believe America has a soul other than a platitude of ‘patriotism’ <which he seems to think is made up of solely of military, law & order and power> nor does he appear to be centered on any moral imperative beyond ‘winning’ <and looking impressive & strong>.

To be clear. That is false patriotism based on some incredibly hollow thinking.

Regardless.

This, simplistically, a false narrative of false patriotism offered to us by a false leader.

I believe there is a time to stand with strength, there is a time to be competitive, there are winners and losers and not everyone should get a trophy and that being nice isn’t an imperative with regard to how you play the game or be competitive.

I believe in America, respect for the flag and that patriotism is a powerful energy underlying ‘e pluribus unim.’

I can almost 99% guarantee the American Symbolic Chief, or our President, only cares about how you look while you play the game <the ‘trappings as it were> and wraps himself in an American flag without understanding what the flag stands for.

Everyone should remember in this struggle that Trump is hollow and in his lack of leadership ‘e pluribus unim’ runs the risk of being driven by platitudes an superficial ‘branding’ exercises rather than true understanding of what makes ‘one out of many.’

And everyone should be thinking that Trump should be the last fucking person to be defining patriotism for us.

Sigh.

If anyone doubts the patriotism of someone who kneels during the national anthem, I will end with this thought.

==============

“I got a daughter, she’s going to have to live in this world. I’m going to do whatever I got to do to make sure she can look at her dad and be like, ‘Hey, you did something, you tried to make a change.’”

“Those who worry about an American military supposedly in decline should relax.”

—–

Michael O’Hanlon and David Petraeus

===============

U.S. Army Chief of Staff Mark Milley:

“the US Army … more capable, better trained … and more lethal than any other ground force in the world.”

=============

“Neither our strategy nor our psychology as a nation and certainly not our economy must become dependent upon the military establishment.”

——-

John F. Kennedy

========

Ok.

On Memorial Day, a day on which we honor the ones who gave ‘their full measure of devotion’, I pulled out a piece that has been sitting in my draft folder for quite some time.

It is a thought piece on the rhetoric and thinking on the overall decline of the American military as well as some of the simplistic thoughts being shared on the spending and size of the American military.

I will not provide gobs of resources to support my thoughts but rather I will direct you to two foundational resources if you want some more thinking fodder.

The first is www.warontherocks.com . If you ever want to get a better grasp on military thinking & strategy, I find no one better than the people at WarontheRocks at offering a wide range of thinking, and thinkers, to help you move beyond the simplistic politician rhetoric.

The second is a fabulous piece written for Foreign Affairs magazine by Michael O’Hanlon and David Petraeus called America’s Awesome Military.

Anyway.

I can honestly say I have always had a point of view with regard to how much the USA spends on its military and I absolutely believe in spending on the military and defense.

100%.

But I sometimes believe we need to get a grip.

Now.

Politicians, Trump in particular, seems to have a nasty habit of tying spending to old school military things and thinking – lots of big ships, lots of people in uniform and lots of big weapons <and cool ones>.

Basically it is just a ‘more & big’ spending strategy.

But if you listen or speak to military people there are some real nuanced discussions going on – what do I actually need money to spend on and what strategies of combat do I need to invest money to support?

There are some real debates within the military with regard to spending to support the present and spending to support the future. I wish politicians would just step aside and let the military go directly to the people and say “this is what matters and this is how much it would cost” <with none of that wacky politician budget maneuvering and fake low ball estimating where we end up accommodating overages>.

I wish that because a couple of military commanders, Petraeus in particular along with Michael O’Hanlon, have put a nice stake in the ground with regard to some spending truths.

————————–

Despite five years of official complaints about “sequestration” budgets, U.S. military spending remains historically high. In 2016, U.S. military spending will be $607 billion, including $59 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations, the fund that ostensibly finances wars but also funds non-war (or base) accounts. Barring a new budget deal, the fiscal year 2017 budget, now stuck in Congress, will be virtually the same size.

In real (inflation-adjusted) dollars, Americans spend more on the military today than at any point in the Cold War, except the brief peaks during the Korean War and the 1980s. Current military spending is 36 percent higher in real terms than in 2000, with two-thirds of the growth in base spending. The United States spends more than double what Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea collectively spend on their militaries.

————————–

Their real point is that the military doesn’t necessarily need a bigger budget but rather they need money to update & upgrade.

And here is where I believe politicians are showing a true lack of imagination.

Year after year we haggle over annual budgets and all we end up doing is funding a great military operation in need of investment spending.

That’s stupid.

What would I do?

Just as I would have done with the Iraq War <but Bush decided to not do> I would go to the American people with a specific number needed and a specific one-time tax to get the money. I would treat the upgrade need as a specific project with specific objectives for which the military will offer specific updates to the American people showing what their money is being spent on and what is happening.

Why do I believe that will work?

The current budget is big enough. I may be interested in tightening the screws a little on current Pentagon budget management but, in general, they have enough money. Tell the people that because it sounds reasonable.

People are fine with paying one-time costs … especially for something as important as the military. In addition it sets the military up for future “ask American people for specific project funding” asks. And you know what? if people cannot be convinced to invest in it maybe, just maybe, the military should go back to the drawing board. but I have to tell you … in my experience … the senior military personnel are better than 99% of business people at outlining needs & wants and rationale.

To a certain extent the military should involve the everyday people more often. We often talk about the wealth inequality gap in America, well, there is an increasing gap between military and everyday people. Military people, and families, and associated services are becoming increasingly cocooned. This does not benefit the military nor does it benefit the everyday citizen. Both groups are made up of some incredibly patriotic people who have the best intentions for America … it would behoove America if they interacted more often.

Lastly, military strategies are changing. And while my idea is about budgeting and asking for money it bleeds into the military sharing with people how conflicts will be conducted. This benefits both the military and the everyday schmuck like me. it sets better expectations and stops people from defining military by movies and past military historical events.

The biggest thing that jumped out to me was actually a business idea <described in military terms>. I call it “controlled autonomy” <driving disciplined decision making in a business as close to the actual business itself> but the Army Chief of Staff called it “disciplined disobedience.”

Wow.

What a great fucking phrase.

Awesome.

But it also has budgetary repercussions <you need to train and recruit different types of soldiers>.

And the everyday schmuck like me needs to hear about this so I can better understand why the military needs a specific budget.

All of which suggest that monies need to be shifted to accommodate strategies.

All of which also suggest that U.S. military spending is partially high because U.S. security ambitions are broad AND the strategies are evolving but not evolved <this suggest inefficiencies>.

What do I mean? For example … quick strike & response is dictated by proximity and if you see threats everywhere then … well … you need to be everywhere with enough force to be meaningful.

———————

A strategy of restraint would serve the United States better. By narrowing the scope of what U.S. security requires, restraint would establish a true “defense” budget. Though cost savings are secondary to strategic benefits, a military budget premised on restraint would save substantially more than hunting “waste, fraud, and abuse,” a common method of finding military savings. Waste hunters implicitly endorse primacy by objecting only to what offends their sense of sound management: overruns in acquisition programs, failed projects in war zones, or research projects with foolish titles. The Pentagon’s efficient pursuit of unwise goals is a far richer target for cuts.

<source: WarontheRocks>

—————–

Once again … we have the resources, we have the trained soldiers … the military doesn’t need complete overhaul but rather some fine tuning <source: America’s Awesome Military>:

The condition of most weaponry compares well with that of the Reagan era. For example, most Army vehicles have “mission capable rates” exceeding 90%. To be sure, there are concerns, for example in certain helicopter fleets. Problems that exist are specific, not systemic.

Training is still recovering from the stresses and strains of recent years. The ground forces in particular, after so many years conducting counterinsurgency, are gradually restoring their abilities for large-scale maneuver warfare of the type vital to deter Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un, among others. About two more years will be needed to complete the task. But the recovery path is now well charted and well funded.

The men and women of the U.S. military, though tired and strained, have never been finer. That is not a simple statement of patriotism. The data back it up. For example, today’s typical serviceman or servicewomen has even more experience in uniform than those of Reagan’s day. Military pay is solid, compared with jobs in the civilian economy. For example, the latest quadrennial review of military compensation calculated that the typical soldier, sailor, airman, airwoman or Marine earns more than about 85% of his or her civilian cohorts with comparable age, education and experience in overall compensation.

The defense budget, though itself not proof of quality, is high by historical standards. Counting combat operations as well as nuclear weapons accounts at the Energy Department (but not counting the Department of Veterans Affairs budget, which is separate), national defense now costs America slightly more than $600 billion a year. That compares with a Cold War average of about $525 billion, in inflation-adjusted 2016 dollars. It is at least three times China’s budget and six to eight times Russia’s. And those much-pilloried U.S. allies collectively budget about an additional $600 billion between them, meaning that the Western alliance system accounts for at least two-thirds of global military spending.

Let me summarize all the detail I shared <because I dint think everyone would go to the highlighted article.

Setting aside all the rhetoric … the US armed forces display high standards of professionalism, expertise, and experience. As Michael O’Hanlon and David Petraeus said in America’s Awesome Military:

———————

The United States has the best military in the world today, by far. U.S. forces have few, if any, weaknesses, and in many areas—from naval warfare to precision-strike capabilities, to airpower, to intelligence and reconnaissance, to special operations—they play in a totally different league from the militaries of other countries. Nor is this situation likely to change anytime soon, as U.S. defense spending is almost three times as large as that of the United States’ closest competitor, China, and accounts for about one-third of all global military expenditures—with another third coming from U.S. allies and partners.

Nevertheless, 15 years of war and five years of budget cuts and Washington dysfunction have taken their toll. The military is certainly neither broken nor unready for combat, but its size and resource levels are less than is advisable given the range of contemporary threats and the missions for which it has to prepare. No radical changes or major buildups are needed.

=============

“We have what we need, but we need every dollar, every training event, every person.”

———

Col. Robert Whittle, 1st Cavalry Division

================

Now.

Politicians posture. That is what they do <no matter how misguided it is>.

But we need to stop talking about military not only in last generation terms but also in a discrete way … what I mean by that is the United States has many resources to draw on beyond its military forces. The country’s high-tech and innovative sectors are the best in the world. It has solid economic fundamentals, including a gradually growing population base, the world’s best univer­sities, and a large market at the center of global finance and commerce.

===============

“We know already that computers are mightier than guns. We know that the new opportunities reside in the campuses of the scientists, rather than in the camps of the army.”

—-

Shimon Peres: May 1994, at the signing of the Gaza-Jericho Accord

=============

And, assuming the current administration does not dismantle it, the United States leads a globe-spanning system of alliances and partnerships that includes some 60 countries, collectively accounting for two-thirds of global economic output and military capacity.

Look.

Feel free and visit some of the resources I have provided. You will clearly find some incredibly smart military minds discussing what strategy & tactics look like in the future. Most discussion revolves around mobility, instant adaptability, ability to integrate with nation coalition forces, divesting force structure <remove some land bases and use increase navy as ‘moving platforms’ to deliver & deploy … which allows substantial savings in personnel, operations and maintenance, intelligence, and real estate costs> and the combination of combat & stability operations <post combat>.

They clearly recognize that the world looks different as does military response needs.

And all of that impacts budget needs beyond the simplistic “more ships, more planes and bigger stuff” arguments.

Lastly.

NATO.

Geez.

At some point I would either like Donald J Trump to have a NATO 101 lesson or simply let DOD secretary Mattis handle it.

Bottom line is that there is a relationship between what other members invest in their defense and what USA invests. But it isn’t ‘their money versus our money.’

Their investments eliminate the need for USA resources … that is the relationship. They spend more and we can spend less <make some cutbacks>.

And you know what? Obama was able to squeeze out a promise to increase their own expenditures 4 years ago and … well … as Mattis just said: “And the bottom line is that nations are spending more on defense now than they were five years ago or ten years ago”.

The whole NATO discussion out of Trump’s mouth wanders between crazy ignorant and crazy grandstanding.

And the worst part is that uncertainty with NATO impacts budgetary needs.

Anyway.

On this memorial Day I want to suggest we need to provide the proper resources to our military … but that doesn’t necessarily mean just throwing money at them. In today’s world I want money to chase smart thinking. And, as I have already said, peruse the military minds around the country and we have the smart thinking … we just need politicians to get out of the way.

“If we cannot come together to pause, to respect our dead and the heroic lives of meaning they led, then ours is truly a civilization lost.“

Mark McKinnon

===

Ok.

I am guilty.

And I feel guilty.

It is Memorial Day here in the USofA and … well … you know … I sometimes skip lightly over the surface of what Memorial Day was established for.

The day is not to thank those who serve in the military … but to remember those who served in the military.

Specifically, those who provided what Abraham Lincoln suggested ‘gave the last full measure of devotion.’

—————

“The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.

It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

==

Abraham Lincoln

November 19, 1863

——–

Anyway.

My thought today, and its associated feeling of guilt, arose when I read this article in the Washington Post from a Marine veteran suggesting “I hate happy memorial day.”

It is a powerfully written op-ed.

And she is correct.

Not enough people take a moment and remember the meaning of Memorial Day <beyond the sales blasting over the radio> and, more importantly, the ones we should be memorializing.

I took a moment and tried to find excuses for us.

I found my first excuse in something I wrote last year for Memorial Day:

————–

I remind everyone of this today because while sometimes we Americans invest a lot of energy trying to convince ourselves that we are the most dysfunctional and divisive country in the world we may want to invest some of that same energy reminding ourselves that because we stand so unequivocally for ‘freedom of’ that can make us appear dysfunctional & divisive … that is sometimes simply the natural repercussions of a culture embracing, and constantly struggling with, ‘freedom of.’

Supporting that belief and right is not only a responsibility our military upholds globally … we enjoy it domestically.

Freedom forces involvement <either mentally or physically>. And I believe when people are involved in choices, or even just voicing opinions, they feel more involved in the bigger picture of what is happening … and are proportionately happier.

—————

While I do not doubt for one minute the patriotism of 99.9% of Americans I do see some confusion with regard to what America is, was … and will be … as well as what those who have served actually died for.

The same 99.9% who feel pride in the flag also feel some dissatisfaction in where we are as a country. In that I believe we sometimes focus on our perceived <or real> dysfunctions rather than all the freedoms and luxurious privileges we currently are fortunate enough to have.

We haggle over aspects & infringements of specific ‘freedoms’ ignoring the fact we have the freedom at all.

We should memorialize the ones who didn’t fight over the second clause and the second sentence and the second word in some amendment but rather they laid down their lives for a country with bigger freedoms in mind. They didn’t fight, and die, over words but ideas.

They deserve a moment of reflection for the idea that makes USofA.

And then I found my second excuse.

99% do not know anything about war personally. We only know Warcraft version, the movie version, the book version and the romanticized version. Maybe 2% of US citizens are involved in military and less has had direct involvement in war.

Our concept of hardship is … well … conceptual. Our sacrifice is next to nothing. This doesn’t mean we don’t care but we lack the depth of understanding to truly personalize it.

They deserve a moment of reflection for the hardship they chose in the name of USofA … a hardship most of us are never required to assume … because they did.

Neither of these are excuses. Well. At least real excuses.

We should reserve some space for silence … for a pause to remember.

In fact.

The National Moment of Remembrance Act encourages a minute of silence at 3pm local time on Memorial Day.

So, maybe take a moment to pause and remember.

Maybe just one pause in the day … one where we can sit, stand or lay on the grass and we can take a minute or two to converse silently with the ghosts of those who gave “the fill measure of devotion.”

And that moment maybe makes each ghost a little bit more real as a human being.

I cannot guarantee that this moment will not be endured “horribly” for the ghosts of those who have come before and done their duty must stand before us and demand the responsibility of the task before each and every one of us.

But … pause we must.

But … listen we must.

But … remember we must.

It is for us, the living, to insure these dead shall not have died in vain.

… It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain

I was recently asked by an interesting B2B company to write some blog posts and new business direct mail thoughts. They were interesting because <a> they wanted to focus on a smarter, more intelligent, level of thinking in their communication <b> they truly had an ‘edge’ to them in terms of attitude, and <c> they were interested in taking on specific objections they hear day in and day out in a candid fashion. It was fun for me and I generated maybe 20 draft thoughts for them in less than 3 days. The following shares my favorites <in rough draft form and the name of the company removed>.

===

Unlike B2C marketing, effective B2B marketing is pragmatic.

There is nothing subliminal in effective B2B selling & marketing. You aren’t supposed to “feel it.” You are meant to sense urgency and build trust and, ultimately, create pragmatic value.

We at Company X believe people who approach B2B with a consumer perspective get it wrong 2 ways:

– They define emotion wrong.

– They define hope wrong.

Emotion.

In the consumer world emotion is defined by ‘excitement, surprise, delight & ‘joy of discovery’ and invariably someone with a consumer background will want to discuss ‘creating an emotional connection.’

In the business world emotion is defined by respect, trust and pragmatic discovery. Yes, there is a pragmatic aspect in emotion. It is most often found in comfort, trust and sleeping well at night.

That is called ‘emotional security.’

<selling> … many dimensions, both practical (such as problem solving, the provision of information, and access to events, forums and workshops) and emotional, (including respect, friendship and a sense of partnership).
Individual relationships can be more important than the brand.

Millward Brown

Hope.

Anyone in marketing, B2B or B2C, is a dealer in hope because any potential customer wants to be better, do better or feel better.

In the consumer world hope is defined by ‘what if’ – reaching for something better.

In the business world hope is defined by ‘what should be’ – reaching for a better level.

In that distinction resides pragmatism. Any B2B initiative based on ‘what if’ will never be effective because businesses, and business decision makers, don’t seek dreams … they seek results.

‘What should be’ delivers upon the realistic hope of any business … better results.

Lastly.

Pragmatic selling.

Many businesses believe no one can ‘sell pragmatically’ unless they are an inside sales person. They are wrong. At its core pragmatism is based on facts, truth and understanding of what it is you are communicating. Nurturing future customers in a long buying process is engineered and not crafted.

The final sale is between the company and the business that is where the sale is crafted and the partnership is sealed. But ‘selling’ is the purview of those who are well educated in the product or solution and understand when to educate and when to sell <which is based on cues>.

Company X understands how to deliver a consistent volume of qualified sales opportunities by communicating pragmatically within the overall buying process.

The Company X programs often have the following pragmatic characteristics:

• Products or solutions offered in a complex selling environment

• Requires multiple decision makers to be engaged

• ROI based decision making process

• Prospect business intelligence is critical

• Subject matter expertise is required for conversion

Pragmatism leads to consistent sales flow with quality business connections.

“… pragmatism sounds boring, but it is not. It is exciting. It is sometimes surprising. It can deliver upon hopes. And it is always enjoyed when it is delivered well, delivered consistently and delivers results.”

I was recently asked by an interesting B2B company to write some blog posts and new business direct mail thoughts. They were interesting because <a> they wanted to focus on a smarter, more intelligent, level of thinking in their communication <b> they truly had an ‘edge’ to them in terms of attitude, and <c> they were interested in taking on specific objections they hear day in and day out in a candid fashion. It was fun for me and I generated maybe 20 draft thoughts for them in less than 3 days. The following shares my favorites <in rough draft form and the name of the company removed>.

===

=================

At the beginning of the twentieth century, the Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto observed that 80% of Italy’s wealth belonged to 20% of the population.

And that’s not all: 20% of workers do 80% of the work; 20% of criminals commit 80% of the crimes; 20% of car drivers cause 80% of the accidents; 20% of hedge funds invest 80% of the money; 20% of pub-goers consume 80% of the alcohol. We wear 20% of the clothes we have in our wardrobes and spend 80% of our time with 20% of our friends. In business meetings, 80% of the decisions are made in 20% of the time, and 20% of a company’s clients (products) are responsible for 80% of its turnover.

Of course, the Pareto rule cannot be applied to everything (mathematicians prefer the more precise ’64/4’ rule, because 80% of 80 is 64 and 20% of 20 is 4). But anybody who wants to plan their time optimally should know that roughly 20% of the time spent on a task leads to 80% of the results.

——–

Mikael Krogerus & Roman Tschappeler

The Pareto rule applies to B2B sales engineering, although, if you google “Pareto and B2B sales” you would never know it.

All you will see is article after article about how 20% of a sales force generates 80% of the sales. One would wonder, Company X included, why no one has thought about the sales process and Pareto to better understand the sales force dynamic.

Think about it.

A typical sales force will invest 80% of their energy on 20% of the targets on their list <which ultimately give back 80% of sales>.

Sales forces are hunters and they will try and squeeze out everything they can from the most prosperous looking hunting grounds. On occasion, as they dabble in the rest of the target possibilities, they will uncover a new ‘hunt’ and invest energy <typically shedding one of the non-producers on their current 20% focused list>. This new additional hunt happens just often enough that someone on the outside looking in would think the entire database is being worked equally and sales are being engineered efficiently & effectively.

Here is the main problem with what we just outlined.

Typically only about 20% of target decision makers may be active in the buying process at any given point. The likelihood that the 20% a sales force is working on and the 20% who are actively in the buying process are exactly the same is … well … 0%.

Okay.

Mathematically it would actually mean at any given point the sales force is actually able to work 20% of the 20%. Let’s make that … well … less than 5% of the target database is being managed effectively.

Some of our numbers may not be exactly right but you get our point.

To be fair <to sales forces>. Salespeople are motivated by money and that incentive plans drives their behavior. It is human nature to seek the 20% and make a sale.

Let’s highlight the two main issues that arise when viewing this while Pareto and typical sales force behavior:

1. It’s really 64/4.

Sales engineering also follows the Pareto Rule although we will stick with the more precise 64/4 rule.

At any given point only 64% of your target decision makers in your target list are “good” and active.

And only about 4% <or a little above> will want to have a real sales meeting in a month. Yet, a typical sales force is at best effectively interacting with only 50% of both pools of decision makers. In other words … only 32% of your list is being worked and you are missing half of possible meeting opportunities because your sales force isn’t even interacting with them.

Click here to see how Company X maximizes meeting opportunities.

<link here for ‘maximizing sales meetings’ in Methodology>

2. Behavior is hard to change: leaving a 20% you feel you can make a sale with means changing how you think about building a sale.

Every experienced salesperson has a constant eye on their sales targets. The biggest issue in sales engineering is that salespeople, like most people and the markets they serve, are reluctant to change. Yet change and adaptability is the key to engineering a buying process with multiple decision makers. Behavior can really only be changed in a sales process by taking many of the decision away from the sales people, who know how to close but are maybe a little less savvy about weaving their way thru nudging someone own a purchase cycle, and placing the decisions into the hands of, well, the decision makers. Decision maker cues should drive sales engineering actions.

Change can occur when you take emotional, or perceived ‘sales instincts’, out of the sales engineering and replace it with ‘stimulus-response’ methodology.

Click here to see how Company X engineers education outbound off of decision maker cues <insert link here for the engineering aspect of the Model>

You shouldn’t ignore the 80% of decision makers in your database simply because they are not actively in the buying process. In fact, we would argue you should invest smartly against this 80% if you want to generate consistent better sales results. That investment in time an energy pas off in better understanding the potential customers, find out when they’re ready to buy, and ultimately generate the best returns from your sales and marketing activities.

Engineering the 80% is not about making a short term sales but rather the long term understanding of motivations, interests, and their unique purchase journey. In fact, engineering the 80% effectively creates an increasingly efficient sales effort against the actual active 20%. Through learning and constant connection with decision makers you actually impose your will against the buying process and in understanding the decision maker and the environment you can actually pick and choose contacts to get better sales more often.

We have shared many numbers and lots of math <probably some bad math>.

But suffice it to say Pareto was a smart man.

If only 4% of your target decision makers are actively in the ‘time to make a purchase decision’ mode at any given point, a business’s margin of error is incredibly small and the window of sales opportunity is well defined, but also small.

Company X knows how to effectively affect decision makers at the right time, the right place and the right message to create the right amount of consistent sales a business deserves.

I was recently asked by an interesting B2B company to write some blog posts and new business direct mail thoughts. They were interesting because <a> they wanted to focus on a smarter, more intelligent, level of thinking in their communication <b> they truly had an ‘edge’ to them in terms of attitude, and <c> they were interested in taking on specific objections they hear day in and day out in a candid fashion. It was fun for me and I generated maybe 20 draft thoughts for them in less than 3 days. The following shares my favorites <in rough draft form and the name of the company removed>.

====

–

If there was ever a Latin phrase which encapsulated B2B sales and sales development it would be festina lente <make haste slowly or patiently>.

Think about it.

Successful sales engineering is all about the combination of patience and timely haste. Unfortunately, sales forces are infamous for their lack of patience. Their skill is the efficient close and not the patient hunt.

In addition, the successful sales engineering patience has to be overlaid with a decision making efficiency. Once again, sales forces are infamous for their sense of urgency and, as US President Dwight D. Eisenhower supposedly once said:

‘The most urgent decisions are rarely the most important ones’.

Maybe the most important part of festina lente in B2B sales engineering is deciphering the urgent from the non-urgent and the important from the unimportant. Misreading any of these things may create haste on sales part at the wrong time and waste energy & focus and, at its worst, cost a sale.

Patient sales engineering modeling at its most simplest is grounded in the The Eisenhower Matrix. While Stephen Covey is often credited with the decision making matrix it was actually Dwight Eisenhower, considered a master of time management, who developed the matrix.

With over two decades of B2B sales engineering experience and 1000’s of lead generation expertise we at Company X have found that distinguishing between what is important and what is urgent when in sales is infinitely difficult.

Sales forces, with good intentions to make a sale, often focus too strongly on the ‘urgent and important’ field, on the things they feel have to be dealt with immediately to either not lose the sale or to make the sale.

Here is the unfortunate truth for a sales force.

B2B sales is all about having the ability to do everything as and when it needs to be done. This means that not reading what is important and misreading the ‘when’ with decision makers and not getting things done promptly have consequences.

This means that if the situation is misread a sales person is far too often forced to make decisions based on limited or ambiguous information.

On the other hand, when done well, when implemented in an effective Engineering Model, decision making and consequences is actually a patient methodical process.

At the beginning of the process, when the finer details have yet to be clarified, there is a need to be bolder in our decision-making – particularly because these early decisions have the most far-reaching consequences. And toward the end of the buying process as the decision maker nears a real decision, and when we know more and have fewer doubts about what to say & do, there are less fundamental things to decide.

This is called the Consequences Model created by the Danish organization theorists Kristian Kreiner and Søren Christensen.

Philosophically this means the most important question in a B2B sales engineering process is how we can bridge the chasm between doubt and decision.

Sales forces and sales people tend to do this by ‘feel’ or ‘gut.’

Company X does this through patiently providing stimulus and assessing cues and responding to those cues.

The Company X Methodology clearly reflects the extent of the consequences of decisions as they relate to the extent of knowledge. Time and time again over 1000’s of lead generation programs Company X has patiently gathered knowledge and made the right decisions with regard to the right messages to the right people and the consequences have been consistent sales meeting acquisition and ultimately sales success.

I was recently asked by an interesting B2B company to write some blog posts and new business direct mail thoughts. They were interesting because <a> they wanted to focus on a smarter, more intelligent, level of thinking in their communication <b> they truly had an ‘edge’ to them in terms of attitude, and <c> they were interested in taking on specific objections they hear day in and day out in a candid fashion. It was fun for me and I generated maybe 20 draft thoughts for them in less than 3 days. The following shares my favorites <in rough draft form and the name of the company removed>.

===

Most people in sales are optimists. They project sales growth and project a sense of anticipation for what a sales force will do for an organization.

This seemingly realistic anticipation tends to only find itself mired in disappointment <with some extraordinary peaks of excitement when something goes well>.

Let’s call this constant chafing between anticipation & disappointment ‘Anticipointment’ – where high optimistic expectations are followed by a letdown.

===

anticipointment

n. A state of mind produced after having overly-anticipated a particular event or purchase, thus creating unreasonably high expectations, and then been disappointed after the event or purchase has taken place because the expectations were not met.

===

If you are involved in sales development & the actual sales presentation you likely been there and, if honest, more than once.

That said, if you think about this thing called ‘Anticipointment’ you will recognize what Company X recognize – it burdens sales development, negotiations as well as a sale itself.

This burden is actually rooted in something called “anticipated pleasure.’

Research suggests that anticipated pleasure, or conversely anticipated pain, is almost as powerful a motivator as the actual pleasure or pain feelings.

This all means that when making a decision, even on something that no longer gives any pleasure, you will most likely use the emotions you might experience as a result of the choice as the reason you make the choice.

This happens in sales planning and sales projections all the time. As we write this we get a queasy feeling and think of the infamously horrible thought which we hear far too often in business:

===

“I don’t know what I’m looking for, but I’ll feel it when I find it.”

–

Sonya Tecla

===

Anticipointment is unnecessary particularity in the B2B business world. A business should know what to look for in sales and sales development and shouldn’t have to ‘feel it when they find it.’

Sales should be anticipated as predictable, consistent and, on rare occasions, surprisingly good.

Sales engineering is intelligently designed and intelligently implemented – delivered consistently time after time and delivering predictable consistent results. The result is a gain in sales development productivity, efficiency in the sales process and increased effectiveness in final engagement. The engine consistently runs and adapts as the environment dictates to shift based on needs analysis.